RECALL/IMPEACH JUDGE William A. "Bill" Morvant, Republican

Oct 5, 2004

[Yosemitest]

I'VE HAD IT!!! NO...REALLY!

How long do we have to tolerate these homosexual judges?
How long do we have to put up with RINO's in the Republican party?

This activist judge... the DIS-honorable and unrespectable William A. "Bill" Morvant, Republican, is due for re-election Dec 31, 2008. I can't tolerate this piece of garbage that long!

I want to go to his home at CENSORED , and hang him in effigy to demonstrate how offensive his actions against the will of the people are unaccecptable. I'd like to call him and tell him how I will never vote for him again. I hope the Republican party finds a replacement, because if his name is on the ballot, and there only a democrat against him, then I won't vote that issue. The democrat wins.

Civil Court Judge WIlliam A. Morvant of Section 23; Division H, L, (15) , has earned my contempt, and I WON"T FORGET IT!!!!

What did he do? Amendment Banning La. Gay Marriage Tossed He overturned the will of the people of Louisiana.

Ballot No. 1
Act No. 926
House Bill No. 61 (Duplicate of Senate Bill No. 166)

Amendment No. 1, Regular Session, 2004, A JOINT RESOLUTION


"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Louisiana, to enact Article XII, Section 15, relative to marriage; to require that marriage in the state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman; to provide that the legal incidents of marriage shall be conferred only upon such union; to prohibit the validation or recognition of the legal status of any union of unmarried individuals; to prohibit the recognition of a marriage contracted in another jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman; to provide for submission of the proposed amendment to the electors and provide a ballot proposition; and to provide for related matters."

[unlearner]

To use the "two issues" argument to defeat this amendment is ludicrous.

If you claim civil unions and marriage are so unrelated as to require separate measures, you could dissect anything into two parts.

What next, a gay marriage amendment must be split into one amendment applying to homosexual males and another for females because these are two different issues?

Civil unions are part of the same issue.

Judicial tyranny must be stopped. If voting, appealing, and public debating fail to stop it, armed resistance will become the only option left to protect us from this abuse of power.

[Cedar]

"If you claim civil unions and marriage are so unrelated as to require separate measures, you could dissect anything into two parts.

What next, a gay marriage amendment must be split into one amendment applying to homosexual males and another for females because these are two different issues?"

You make a very good point here.

[kc125]

it's called election year politics! I'm a louisiana citizen....voted for the ban, knowing it would be struck down on a technicality. Any judge, follwing the law, would have to do the same thing. It's called a prohibition of "dual objects" in one amendment. The legislature here is full of lawyers. They knew this was coming but didnt have their act together during the legislative session and let this fly by b/c they didnt have time to change it. I am as upset as anyone b/c we deserve a chance to have our collective will enforced, but this amendment was doomed before it ever got passed.

[unlearner]

"Glad its your party stuck with homophobic individuals willing to call for the restriction of civil rights and attacking people for a different life style. "

"Hey not a bad idea after all. Once we get those pesky civil rights out of the way we can be done with many of the more conservative element in our society cause that nasty ole Constitution won't be protecting their right to spew vitrolic venomous hateful remarks any longer. "

We are not calling for the restriction of civil rights. The rights we have are inalienable and self-evident. They do not need to be invented by the judiciary.

The judiciary has extrapolated real rights to the point of making new one's. The right to privacy is being used to justify abortion, sodomy, drug abuse, etc.

Planned Parenthood clinics and "gay" rights parades are not private.

I am not homophobic. I have a perversion aversion. And I can't help it, I was born that way.

Society needs to be protected from sodomy and other perversions. Children need more protection from exposure to this perversion. Our environment does contribute to the sexual imprint and identification that defines our sexuality.

Many homosexuals say that they would not wish homosexuality on their worst enemy. Why then expose children during their formative years? Sodomy practitioners need to be protected from themselves and from their all-consuming lusts.

Lust is not love. Love sacrifices and gives. Lust consumes and destroys the object of lust. Love meets the needs of the loved ones. Lust attempts to self-gratify but cannot be satisfied. Love sensitizes us to the pain of others. Lust desensitizes us and preoccupies us only with our own pleasure and desires..

[BigSkyFreeper]

Glad its your party stuck with homophobic individuals willing to call for the restriction of civil rights and attacking people for a different life style.

There are no rights being taken away or infringed upon. The judges are legislating new rights instead of interpreting the set in stone rights in the Constitution. The Constitution isn't meant to be bent one way or the other, or even shredded entirely.

[ReyDM]

I know you are upset, but everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax. This was an initial ruling at the lowest level of the State which can and hopefully will be overturned by the LA Supremes. Just because one nutty judge decided to ignore 78% of the voters doesn't mean it's over. Wait for the appellate ruling and let's see if this nonsense holds up. Remember also the history here - before the vote, a lower court judge tried to stop it with the same argument. He was I believe thoroughly spanked by the LA appelate court.

I don't believe the "two separate objects" thing holds any legal water. Clearly marriage and "legal incidents thereof" are related. This is splitting hairs by any reasonable analysis. LA doesn't recognize civil unions, so how can they be considered separate from marriage?

[Bogey78O]

Well next month we have the right to trap and hunt on the ballot. That's 2 seperate things too.

[mhking]

We have no business linking to the home addresses/phone numbers of candidates who we don't like. Period. You want to post his office e-mail, phone number, address, that's fine. But to post (or in this case, link to) his home address & phone number is completely over the line.

Indymedia does stuff like that. DU does stuff like that.

We have a responsibility to be bigger than that. No matter how upset we are and get.

[tutstar]

Well I've got a petition going in Fl to have a notorious judge impeached. People will tell you they think he's horrible but when it gets down to it, in my experience, few will actually sign the petition.

The Florida Supremes just overturned a law which our legislature enacted and I think it's a crock. Judges have got to get the message. We're not putting up with this bull anymore!

You need to research LA statutes/laws and find out what provisions are available to get rid of judges then take it from there.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks,
Unfortunately, I WORK for a living, and don't have a lot of time to play legal-tag. But show me the petition and I'll sign.

And if the Republican think I'll vote for that piece of trash again... well, they'd better get another conservative, because this one draws a NO-VOTE.

[tutstar]

Well I think most of us are probably very busy! I could give you the gist of my daily routine as well but that's not the point. If it's going to happen 'someone' will have to do it. It took me weeks to finally get all the info (which other Freepers helped gather)compiled and written into a petition and a website up (bare bones at that) but I did it. Getting the sigs takes effort to email others (or whatever method yall can come up with) to notify them of the petition.

Why doesn't someone make a post to your LA board on FR and see if someone can start the research. With the efforts of several people surely yall can get something started!

[Clintonfatigued]

I read the headline this morning in the paper, about his overturning the gay marriage ban. You're on the money when you say his ruling is unjust. His legal reasoning is flimsy, and he's clearly ruling on his personal opinion instead of the law.

If he planned to marry a man, then he faced conflict of interest and should have recused himself.

[Cedar]

"They knew this was coming but didnt have their act together during the legislative session and let this fly by b/c they didnt have time to change it."

I just can't believe something as important as this--and they "didn't have their act together"?

The people of Louisiana should REALLY be upset at the legislators.

[Yosemitest]

I'm really angry about this issue. I've calmed down a very little.

We really need to recall this piece of garbage that's sitting in a judge's seat. But I don't have the time to track it down (the rules to recall) and do it. Someone please help us.

[rcpl30]

Something is fishy here, the amendment wording is so obviously flawed, "to prohibit the validation or recognition of the legal status of any union of unmarried individuals"; THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE. WHY is it there? Whoever put this in there is the one who deserves our ire, not the judge, who has done the job he is required to do.

[rcpl30]

Problem is that the first issue is about *gay* marriage, and the second issue is about *any* civil union (gay or otherwise).

From the threads, I guess that the legislative intent was to ban *all* civil unions, to presumably prevent gays from utilizing them as a "fallback" to marriage. But the wording explicitly defines (and would eliminate) even heterosexual civil unions. As much as I am literally sick over the gay marriage situation, I would not have voted for the measure myself, because it would have attacked heterosexual relationships as well (thousands of good citizens would have been affected). I would agree that even non-gay civil unions are morally questionable, but there is a limit to how much morality we as a society should legislate

I imagine a good majority of the voters missed this subtle implication on existing civil unions, and the judge's action was probably justified (it is my understanding that he is a good and reputable conservative).

It is someone in the legislature who pulled a "fast one" on the voters of Louisiana (the "hard-liners" referred to), not the the judge, who probably just made one of the most heart-wrenching decisions of his life, but did so out of integrity for his office (something we conservatives stand for).